Exploring the Claim for "Intelligent Design"

[POI]

I can't expect unbelievers to follow the data that leads to intelligent design.

irreducible complexity is associated with the concept of ID...and ID is a concept/movement that I'm standing 10 toes down, and two feet in.

(Kitzmiller v. Dover) ruled that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design, or I.D., in a "science" class. Okay, I think even Since_1985 might agree here in that I.D. has no place in a 'science' class.

However, while following the data in this trial, the claim to "irreducible complexity" was also challenged. Emphasis/focus was placed upon "bacterial flagellum" by creationists. By using logic, and not the "scientific method", skeptics to I.D., while 'following the data', placed forth a case which basically debunks the notion of "irreducible complexity", while addressing the "bacterial flagellum". In a nutshell, after testimony was placed forth to refute 'irreducible complexity', again sighting the "bacterial flagellum", the I.D. side of the isle had no further pushback or rebuttal. For anyone who is interested in all the specifics, a 2-hour documentary can be found here, as I do not wish to write a text-wall:



For debate: While following the data, "irreducible complexity' may not be a grounded rationale to remain in the I.D. camp. Thus, why still continue, two feet in, on the position of I.D. anyways? Faith, other reason(s)?

[Difflugia]

Since you personally see agency everywhere you look, you assume everyone else does, too.

Ehhh. Everyone else "should".

Just like we "should" all see a smiling face on this car, right?


Most of us recognize the similarity to a human face and are amused by it, even talking about it as a face by analogy. Very few people, though, go from there to thinking that there's actually some kind of person behind it.

If a defendant is in court and pleads not guilty, and the prosecution plays a recording that is clear as day of the defendant committing the crime, then the jury should find the defendant guilty.

Now, whether or not they will is a different story, but they definitely should.

But if the prosecution instead just says that they've no idea how the crime was committed and so it absolutely must be the defendant, I'm sure the defendant hopes the jury isn't made up of Christian apologists.

Order, function, and complexity emerge in various forms from a number of natural systems without requiring an intelligent agent.

See, that's where you are wrong.

Since you haven't justified this statement in this post, I can only assume you'll do it in the next one.

Going back to Penrose's 10^10^123 equation/number.

That is a number which describes the precision needed for even any chemistry to exist, much less life.

Instead, you decided to change the subject to something that has nothing to do with emergent order, function, or complexity. While I'm waiting for you to support your initial argument, I'll address your non sequitur.

So, the order and precision had to be there from the very beginning of the big bang, which means that those low entropy conditions had to be there from the moment the big bang.

What order and complexity are you talking about?

But we know that this isn't how entropy works, because if you start off with a big bang you are supposed to have high entropy...and this is proven by virtually any experiment that you conduct.

What experiments are you talking about? If you're talking about Penrose's books, then it's just a mathematical model without experiments to demonstrate anything. That doesn't mean that he's wrong, but it does mean that you're talking out of your hat.

If you throw a deck of cards in the air, you expect to see the chaos of random cards floating in no specified order, thus, high entropy.

What you don't expect to see is the floating cards beginning to land in specified order in the formulation of a card house.

Same thing with letters; if you had 24 tiny pieces of paper and you wrote dedicated every letter of the alphabet to every piece of paper...and you scrambled all the letters and tossed the letters in the air, you do not expect the papers to fall to the ground, formulating words and/or sentences.

These analogies are based on how things behave within our universe with its initial low-entropy state. They say nothing about how the universe got that way.

But that is precisely what we have with the fine tuning of our universe..we are talking mathematical precision, from the initial conditions, to the precision of the constants and parameters.

This is cosmic engineering, amigo.

No. This is, "I don't know." Here's what Penrose himself says about it (The Emperor's New Mind, p. 345):

Thus, it would seem, we need to understand why such a time-asymmetric hypothesis should apply if we are to comprehend where the second law has come from.

How can we gain any further understanding of the origin of the second law? We seem to have been forced into an impasse. We need to understand why space-time singularities have the structures that they appear to have; but space-time singularities are regions where our understanding of physics has reached its limits. The impasse provided by the existence of space-time singularities is somteimes compared with another impasse: that encountered by physicists early in the century, concerning the stability of atoms. In each case, the well-established classical theory had come up with the anser 'infinity', and had thereby proved itself inadequate for the task.

Penrose is saying that our current theories are inadequate for explaining why our universe started in a low-entropy state and why its history seems to be asymmetric with regard to time.

You, on the other hand, are seeing the face on the front of the car and telling the rest of us to pray to it, too.

A physical entity with sentience, is more complex than a thinking entity without sentience.

Do you agree with that premise?

No. We don't know what sentience it, how that relates to thinking, and how either of them relate to complexity. In order for that statement to be even meaningful, let alone something that I could agree with, we need to be able to quantify all three properties and identify their relationship with each other.

Since scientists posit no intelligent agency at all anywhere in the process, it's not a taxicab fallacy.

I understand your assertion, and we are about to test those logical waters with the question above.

I doubt it, but let's see what you've got.

The theory of evolution is built on (and indeed has proven) mechanisms for creating order, function, and complexity that are built on natural laws alone and require no intelligent agent.

Unproven assertion that isn't backed by observation, experiment, or prediction.

"Opinions."

And a badly incorrect one, to boot. Evolution of organisms with high reproductive rates and short generation cycles (bacteria, algae, nematodes, insects) has been observed in the lab. The top-level mechanic of mutation and natural selection has been confirmed, and increases in genetic complexity including de novo genes that are functional have been documented.

Your apologetic excuses (or someone else's apologetic excuses, as it were) for why those are somehow insufficient may give you some measure of peace of mind, but they don't actually affect the science.

You may think their conclusions are wrong, but they're not fallacious.

We will see about that as the discussion moves forward.

Let's hope so.

I wasn't necessarily talking about evolution, but since you mentioned it we can add that to the fallacious junkpile as well.

You weren't talking about evolution? The discussion is about Intelligent Design in the classroom. If the opposing scientific concept you have in mind isn't evolution, what is it?

[SiNcE_1985]

No, you are not yet actually 'addressing' it. Why? You did not see what the video represents about the argument, via bacterial flagellum. You skipped it. Which means you did not address it. Hence, you have no worldly clue if these creationist's argument(s) were good or bad in the trial.

Before I address your given follow-up "human analogy", I'm first asking you to see if bacterial flagellum is, or is not, a viable argument for irreducible complexity. If you agree it's a crappy argument, in which AIG is also still adhering to, then we can certainly move on to your follow-up. If you instead think bacterial flagellum IS still a viable argument, then we can discuss. Please see my OP debate request:

For debate: While following the data, "irreducible complexity' may not be a grounded rationale to remain in the I.D. camp. Thus, why still continue, two feet in, on the position of I.D. anyways? Faith, other reason(s)? We can address the other reasons as soon as you tell me if the reason given in the court case is actually good or bad. But for you to know, you first need to know what the argument even is....

With all due respect, I can care less about whether bacterial flagellum represents intelligent design.

That's not where my focus is on the issue.

So, no, I'm not wasting my time watching a video that is of no interest to me.

I can't put it any more clearer than that.

As you would state, "reading comprehension"....

Here is what I stated in the OP:

"(Kitzmiller v. Dover) ruled that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design, or I.D., in a "science" class. Okay, I think even Since_1985 might agree here in that I.D. has no place in a 'science' class."

However, while following the data in this trial, the claim to "irreducible complexity" was also challenged. Emphasis/focus was placed upon "bacterial flagellum" by creationists. By using logic, and not the "scientific method", skeptics to I.D., while 'following the data', placed forth a case which basically debunks the notion of "irreducible complexity", while addressing the "bacterial flagellum".

In a nutshell, the bacterial flagellum argument was also a fail. I bring up this court case because this particular argument for irreducible complexity was refuted with logic, and not science. And yet, ID-ers are still using it. Should they stop?

Very well, then.

I retract what I said about you misrepresenting the case ruling.

And again, I haven't looked into the case (and do not wish to), but your point of "it has been refuted and ID-ers are still using it", as much irony as it may be, it is kinda like textbooks still using any of the various traditional arguments for evolution...arguments (evidences) that have long been refuted, some of which have been blatant lies in favor of evolution...if which have been refuted, yet still are being used in text books today.

Kent Hovind has dedicated hours of video seminars proving this very point "Lies in the textbooks".

So my point is, I'd like to see you use that same energy that you are using for "It has been refuted, but IDers are still using it", use that same energy for evolution and the lies the text books that have proven to have been lies but are still being used today.

As for me, I can care less about bacterial flagellum being proven as insufficient evidence for irreducible complexity, considering it is not even a consideration for the case that Im advocating for.

[SiNcE_1985]

Just like we "should" all see a smiling face on this car, right?

False equivalency fallacy.

Most of us recognize the similarity to a human face and are amused by it, even talking about it as a face by analogy. Very few people, though, go from there to thinking that there's actually some kind of person behind it.

The problem with that is, we already know that there was a person (intelligence) behind it.

So basically, very few people would NOT conclude that there's some kind of person behind it.

But if the prosecution instead just says that they've no idea how the crime was committed and so it absolutely must be the defendant, I'm sure the defendant hopes the jury isn't made up of Christian apologists.

This is just something to say, when you've got nothing of substance to say.

Since you haven't justified this statement in this post, I can only assume you'll do it in the next one.

It is called "continuing to read in order to find out".

Instead, you decided to change the subject to something that has nothing to do with emergent order, function, or complexity.

While I'm waiting for you to support your initial argument, I'll address your non sequitur.

That is the point, the Penrose Equation (PE) is based on the precision of the initial conditions of the universe, which means that unless those fine tuned initial condition parameters weren't dialed in as mathematically precise from the universes initial state, then there would be no order, function, or complexity at all.

Going back to the analogy of the cards (and the card house), in order for those cards to land and their landing formation to be that of a card house, the initial conditions of the deck(s) itself would have to already be dialed in, in a such a way that the cards will land in that specific way.

Those parameters can't be met by blind and random processes.

But a intelligent engineer can preset the dials to get the results that he wants.

What order and complexity are you talking about?

The initial conditions. Let me put it to you this way..

Please follow me here.

Let's say you're going to bake a cake.

In order for the cake meet your subjective taste, you have to incorporate the right amount of ingredients.

1. Water/Milk
2. Egg
3. Sugar
4. Flour
5. Butter
6. Proper sized pan
7. Correct oven temperature

And whatever else is needed for the cake to turn out just right.

Now, it is already enough of a task to get the ingredients and incorporate it all into a cake, right?

But before you even get to the point of making the cake, certain initial conditions have to be met.

The matter substance that makes up all those ingredients have to be in order first.

Those are the initial conditions.

The cake has to be fine tuned first. So does the elements that make the water. The heat itself. The sugar. The butter.

Each of those things have to meet certain parameters before you even begin baking.

Same thing with our universe. If the initial state of the universe wasnt fine tuned first, the life would never have been permitted.

No cake, no life.

What experiments are you talking about? If you're talking about Penrose's books, then it's just a mathematical model without experiments to demonstrate anything. That doesn't mean that he's wrong, but it does mean that you're talking out of your hat.

Um, any experiment you conduct that shows how entropy works.

The most basic and fundamental experience is from the card analogy.

If you throw a deck of cards in the air, how many times do you think you'll see before your eyes, a card house beginning to develope?

None.

That is the experiment.

The same logic applies to the universe if you start with a big bang.

These analogies are based on how things behave within our universe with its initial low-entropy state. They say nothing about how the universe got that way.

That's the point, there is nothing (natural) outside it that will give it it's low-entropy state.

But it is here that the "yeah, but anything but the "G" word" is about to make its ugly appearance.

No. This is, "I don't know." Here's what Penrose himself says about it (The Emperor's New Mind, p. 345):

Penrose is saying that our current theories are inadequate for explaining why our universe started in a low-entropy state and why its history seems to be asymmetric with regard to time.

Penrose is saying our current scientific theories are inadequate.

That says nothing about the God Hypothesis, which is adequate...and is not a scientific theory.

We are beyond science at this point, as we've reached a boundary.

Saying "I don't know" won't cut it.

We are appealing to the best explanation, and if your idea of the best explanation is that of a mindless/blind process that engineered a finely tuned universe and sentient life, then it is clear that is the price of atheism, one that I'm not willing to pay.

You, on the other hand, are seeing the face on the front of the car and telling the rest of us to pray to it, too.

Whether you pray to it is one thing, but denying that the creation of the car was not based on intelligent design, is another.

No. We don't know what sentience it, how that relates to thinking, and how either of them relate to complexity. In order for that statement to be even meaningful, let alone something that I could agree with, we need to be able to quantify all three properties and identify their relationship with each other.

You're stalling, and it is disgustingly evident.

Which entity has more complexity..

1. Michael Jordan (the living, breathing, conscious basketball legend).

2. The statue of Michael Jordan (inanimate object).

Please rationally answer the question.

I doubt it, but let's see what you've got.

I doubt it too, if you fail to rationally answer the question.

"Opinions."

And a badly incorrect one, to boot. Evolution of organisms with high reproductive rates and short generation cycles (bacteria, algae, nematodes, insects) has been observed in the lab. The top-level mechanic of mutation and natural selection has been confirmed, and increases in genetic complexity including de novo genes that are functional have been documented.

Your apologetic excuses (or someone else's apologetic excuses, as it were) for why those are somehow insufficient may give you some measure of peace of mind, but they don't actually affect the science.

Dogs produce dogs. Not interested in biobbable.

You weren't talking about evolution? The discussion is about Intelligent Design in the classroom. If the opposing scientific concept you have in mind isn't evolution, what is it?

The universe and the human body.

[POI]

With all due respect, I can care less about whether bacterial flagellum represents intelligent design. That's not where my focus is on the issue. So, no, I'm not wasting my time watching a video that is of no interest to me. I can't put it any more clearer than that.

Okay, would you agree "Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems with multiple interacting parts would not function if one of the parts were removed"? --- Assuming you do, then you SHOULD care why ID-ers decided to use bacterial flagellum as a prime example to fight for their position to be placed in textbooks.

Very well, then. I retract what I said about you misrepresenting the case ruling.

Aces

And again, I haven't looked into the case (and do not wish to),

Well, if you did, you might find it quite relevant, as ID-ers opted to use bacterial flagellum as a 'gotcha' example in an attempt to demonstrate "irreducible complexity".

but your point of "it has been refuted and ID-ers are still using it", as much irony as it may be, it is kinda like textbooks still using any of the various traditional arguments for evolution...arguments (evidences) that have long been refuted, some of which have been blatant lies in favor of evolution...if which have been refuted, yet still are being used in text books today.

Being you are in the camp of pro---'irreducible complexity', I'd be quite curious to know if the 'example' given by pseudoscientists in the Dover trial , (i.e.) -- (bacterial flagellum), remains as a viable option for you, or not? You can fast-forward to (minute-64 to about minute-76) of the video in where the ID-er attempted to 'bring it'.

********************************************.

I also created an entire topic called 'Evilution.' You completely aborted, or abandoned ship, the second things started to actually get real. i see no "irony" here. In essence, Mr. Hovind is either a 1) conman or 2) is inept about the topic of what evolutionary biology actually proposes. I see no logical third option, as much as you would like for there to actually be one. At the end of the day, creationists have little response to post 118 of the 'Eviltion' thread, (which was also presented in the same Dover trial BTW), other than to severely pivot their position accordingly. (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=41715&start=110). But I understand why you wish to abort,

Kent Hovind has dedicated hours of video seminars proving this very point "Lies in the textbooks".

As soon as I addressed his first one from Hovind, from the 2-hour video you provided, you told me to take it up with him and not you. Truth is truth, right? I find you would be very capable to explain the first point I challenged from Mr, Hovind, (i.e.) post 88. Until you address that thread, you do not get the liberty to freely mention the 'irony' about evolution without demonstrating that you are inconsistent.

[SiNcE_1985]

Okay, would you agree "Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems with multiple interacting parts would not function if one of the parts were removed"? --- Assuming you do, then you SHOULD care why ID-ers decided to use bacterial flagellum as a prime example to fight for their position to be placed in textbooks.

I'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt here, but bacterial flagellum isn't what I'd have used as an example of irreducible complexity.

I would have used the human body.

Well, if you did, you might find it quite relevant, as ID-ers opted to use bacterial flagellum as a 'gotcha' example in an attempt to demonstrate "irreducible complexity".

Being you are in the camp of pro---'irreducible complexity', I'd be quite curious to know if the 'example' given by pseudoscientists in the Dover trial , (i.e.) -- (bacterial flagellum), remains as a viable option for you, or not? You can fast-forward to (minute-64 to about minute-76) of the video in where the ID-er attempted to 'bring it'.

The human body remains the most viable option to me.

I also created an entire topic called 'Evilution.' You completely aborted, or abandoned ship, the second things started to actually get real.

I remember the thread, but I don't remember the particulars.

i see no "irony" here. In essence, Mr. Hovind is either a 1) conman or 2) is inept about the topic of what evolutionary biology actually proposes. I see no logical third option, as much as you would like for there to actually be one. At the end of the day, creationists have little response to post 118 of the 'Eviltion' thread, (which was also presented in the same Dover trial BTW), other than to severely pivot their position accordingly. (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=41715&start=110). But I understand why you wish to abort,

Opinions.

And you didn't accept my great compromise.

What a pity.

As soon as I addressed his first one from Hovind, from the 2-hour video you provided, you told me to take it up with him and not you. Truth is truth, right? I find you would be very capable to explain the first point I challenged from Mr, Hovind, (i.e.) post 88. Until you address that thread, you do not get the liberty to freely mention the 'irony' about evolution without demonstrating that you are inconsistent.

The Great Compromise of 2024.

[POI]

Okay, would you agree "Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems with multiple interacting parts would not function if one of the parts were removed"? --- Assuming you do, then you SHOULD care why ID-ers decided to use bacterial flagellum as a prime example to fight for their position to be placed in textbooks.

I'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt here, but bacterial flagellum isn't what I'd have used as an example of irreducible complexity.

I would have used the human body.

1) Did you watch the portion of the video I offered?
2) Do you agree with the IC definition I provided?

This response means what, in relation to what I stated above? You might find that your 'human body' example is no better or worse than the bacterial option provided by the IDer in the court case, IF you agree with the IC definition I sighted.

I remember the thread, but I don't remember the particulars.

You do not need to try and recall or remember. I gave you specifics, many times now. You instead choose to ignore it. This is telling. The genetic discovery about chromosome #2, via post 118 of that thread, requires creationists to now pivot or hand-wave it away.

And you didn't accept my great compromise.

The <best> you can offer is unintelligent or convoluted "design". What a pity....Thus, if you want me to concede that, okay.?.?.? Then you must accept peer reviewed science, in evolutionary biology, and completely over-haul your current beliefs, or, just abandon them altogether. It's your call... Which is awesome, because if you should decide to remain a 'Christian", there exist countless denominations, or new positions to adopt, while addressing the exact same collection of books.

Remember when I mentioned the differences between the terms (deism vs. theism)? There exists a large difference IMHO.

[1213]

Please answer the question this time. Is "bacterial flagellum" a good example for irreducible complexity, or not?

irreducible complexity = Irreducible complexity is the argument that certain biological systems with multiple interacting parts would not function if one of the parts were removed

Can you remove some part of the "bacterial flagellum" without making it dysfunctional? I don't know. But, probably every organism has some parts that can be removed. For example you could remove your hands, ans still be somehow functional. By what I know, all organisms have some critical parts, that could not be removed, without the organism dying.

[POI]

I don't know.

Okay, then I guess we are done here. Thanks.

[SiNcE_1985]

1) Did you watch the portion of the video I offered?

I'm trying to figure out what part of "I'm not watching the video", you don't understand.

2) Do you agree with the IC definition I provided?

Solid definition.

This response means what, in relation to what I stated above? You might find that your 'human body' example is no better or worse than the bacterial option provided by the IDer in the court case, IF you agree with the IC definition I sighted.

No, that's not what I find.

I find that the origins of the human body is best explained by intelligent design.

You do not need to try and recall or remember. I gave you specifics, many times now. You instead choose to ignore it. This is telling. The genetic discovery about chromosome #2, via post 118 of that thread, requires creationists to now pivot or hand-wave it away.

Um, chromosomes/DNA presupposes a living cell, and as far as I'm concerned, there is no viable scientific theory as to how life arose from nonliving material.

So, until you can explain that, we will continue to hand wave any cart-before-the-horse conjectures away.

The <best> you can offer is unintelligent or convoluted "design". What a pity....Thus, if you want me to concede that, okay.?.?.? Then you must accept peer reviewed science, in evolutionary biology, and completely over-haul your current beliefs, or, just abandon them altogether. It's your call... Which is awesome, because if you should decide to remain a 'Christian", there exist countless denominations, or new positions to adopt, while addressing the exact same collection of books.

Remember when I mentioned the differences between the terms (deism vs. theism)? There exists a large difference IMHO.

Red herrings.

[POI]

I'm trying to figure out what part of "I'm not watching the video", you don't understand.

What I'm trying to figure out is why you would even respond to a thread which attempts to discuss the very topic in which you state you refuse to discuss? Just don't engage it at all.

Solid definition.

Noted.

No, that's not what I find. I find that the origins of the human body is best explained by intelligent design.

This is exactly what ID-ers state about bacterial flagellum. And since you are also on board with the given definition of I.C., this means both bacterial flagellum and the human body fail to meet their assertions, based upon logic and reason. If you watched the snippet of the video I provided (minute-64 thru minute-76), you would know why.

Um, chromosomes/DNA presupposes a living cell, and as far as I'm concerned, there is no viable scientific theory as to how life arose from nonliving material.

Post 118 is not arguing for or against any origin(s). Post 118 of that thread instead provided irrefutable evidence to demonstrate that we share a common ancestry with the chimpanzee. This requires remaining Christians to modify Genesis to taste. You have three options, as far as I'm concerned here:

1) flat out hand-wave it away
2) Accept it and pivot/modify/retain your beliefs in Jesus anyways
3) Denounce Christianity and either become a generic theist, change to deism, or become an atheist.

Option 1) are for people like Mr. Hovind. Where do you land, after watching the 4-munute video here in post 118? (viewtopic.php?t=41715&start=110).

So, until you can explain that, we will continue to hand wave any cart-before-the-horse conjectures away.

Apples and oranges buddy. Evolution does not speak about initial origins. That would be abiogenesis. And we already agreed abiogenesis is not an established theoretical science. This sub-topic merely destroys your current understanding of Genesis. Maybe you'll later pivot, and be more like Kennith Miller in the video -- (a believer who accepts evolution)?

Red herrings.

LOL! You speak about the "Great Compromise of 2024." And when I respond, this is a "red herring"? You are too funny....

I could agree with everything you propose, and this will only get you so far as to demonstrate unintelligent or convoluted "design". Which then instead is likely NO design, as it would be logically pointless to create things in such a way... The 12 minutes of the video laid out for you explains why.